c. 7. or if distinct a very small quantity of the blood with very great caution given in the bottom of a spoon For the second the Cross and Pictures and a due veneration of them are used as well in these as in the Greek and Roman Church See for the veneration of pictures in the Abyssine Church according in most things with the Egyptians Thom. a Jesu l. 7. p. 380. And the Priests and Religious are said to carry alwayes a Cross in their hands †Roger's Terre Saincte p. 348. And for the use of crossing see the Liturgies For the third Monastick Vows and Celibacy of the Clergy The first of these cannot be denied to be practised in them all §. 179. n. 1. and from this therefore the lawfulness of the second I mean of an injunction of Celibacy to the Clergy is justified as hath been shewed before § 164 and a necessity of such Celibacy jure divino is not affirmed by the Roman Church But for this second The practice in these Churches is much what the same as in the Greek viz. that persons married are freely admitted to be Priests but none after made Priests suffered to marry which being a yoke that few where liberty to take wives before-hand is granted have a firm mind to undergo hence it so happens that most of the secular Clergy in these other Churches as well as in the Greek are de facto married meanwhile †Thom. a Jesu l. 7. c. 9. the Regulars that are Priests do live alwayes in Celibacy and so do all the Bishops that are chosen out of Regulars as they are so chosen most frequently and in some Churches as in the Abyssine †Terre Saincte p. 347. and I think in the Greek they only can be-chosen Bishops For the fourth Auricular or Sacramental Confession §. 179. n. 2. and penance though such confession in few or none of these Churches wherein the Church-discipline in such a commixture of Mahometanism and Heathenism is much decayed is so strictly observed as in the Roman or yet as in the Greek Church either as to their making it so often as they receive the Communion or as to an enumeration of their particular faults when they make it yet it seems not to be altogether omitted or disused as with Protestants it is Zaga Zabo an Abyssine Bishop saith †Apud Damianum à Goes de Ethiopium morth it is used by the Abyssines and to give it in Brerewood's words ‖ Enquiries p. 166. That presently upon commission of sin they resort to the Confessor and at every Confession though it were every day receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist Again that Mulieres gravidae ante partus tempus semper confitentur corpus Domini confessae accipiunt ut infans capiens inde nutrimentum ex ejus communicatione sit sacratus And They have great respect saith the Fr. Recollect †Terre Saincte p. 361. to all the Sacraments and as for Confession they appoint rigorous penances and those publick for publick offences And with these Authors may those quoted by Daille †De confessione auriculari l. 4. c. 1. to say the contrary well agree whilst they speak of several parts of a vast Country or of an usual omission of it by some of these Sonthern Christians before they receive for all receive frequently viz. on all Festivals †Thom. a Jesu p. 371. and of a perfunctory performance of it only in general by many when they do it So Thom. a Jesu out of the Bishop of Sidon's Relation †p. 387. saith of the Jacobites and Armenians Sacramentum confessionis rarissimè not nunquam apud nationes illas frequentatur multique not omnes communicant sine auriculari confessione And of the Cophthites †p. 361. Moris non est ante vigesimum aut circiter annum unquam Sacramentum paenitentiae recipers And †Ib. p. 416. Sacramentum Confesâ—ionis auricularts ut est apud Ecclesiam Romanam Confirmationis extremae Vnctionis ferè non agnoscunt Sacramental Confession therefore in these Churches seems rather de facto much neglected than de jure not allowed or required and looks rather like a custom by the malignity of time somewhat defaced than never at all known or used And this neglect of Confession perhaps may partly arise from a different judgment they have of mortal sin the only necessary matter of confession whilst they account some few of the greatest only such § 180 Yet for external penances and austerities especially in the Monasticks and Clergy of these Eastern and Southern Churches they are observed to be very great and one of the chiefest causes of their dislike and contempt of the Latine Church besides the difference which they have in several other Ceremonies of Religion to arise from hence that they see many of them in such corporal severities more remiss See Rogers Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 335. And Thom. a Jesu l. 6. p. 284. Species austerioris vitae quae in eorum Hieromonachis Metropolitis Archiepiscopis frequenter cernitur Latinos contemnendi praebet occasionem c. So the Abyssine Religious and Bishops †Roger Terre Saincte l. 2. p. 347. go barefoot wear hair-cloth never eat flesh and in Lent which they begin three dayes after the Purification and other Fasts eat no Fish or white-meats make only one meal a day without any Collation at Sun-set drink no wine though when they happen to be in a Country that affords it as their own doth not use disciplines carry great weights about their bodies See much what the same abstinences of the Greek Bishops and Monks †Ib. p. 337. Goar Eucholog p. 407. who also keep four Lents or solemn Fasts in the year adding to ours that of Advent another from the first of August to the Assumption of our Lady another from the Octave of Whitsuntide to S. Peter's day the same is said of the Maronites †Ib. p. 426. the same * Ib. p. 336. or more of the Armenian Bishops and Religious never eating flesh not indulging themselves in their Lents fish white-meats or so much as oyl or any thing boiled Hence are all these much displeased with the Western liberty of using fish and wine and Collations in Lent and of several Religious Orders eating flesh out of it From what hath been said then may be discovered the defects of that summary account which after a long discourse Dr. Field in l. 1. c. 1. p. 75. gives of the Agreement both of the Greek § 181 and other Eastern Churches with the Protestants in all the principal modern Controversies where he thus informs his Reader 1st saith he They all deny and impugne that supreme universality of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the. Bishop of Rome claimeth Of this see below § 186. the Greeks allowing though not so much as the Pope claimeth yet more than I think many Protestants will consent to 2ly
will premise some undeniable truths which speak the Authority of Church Governors the obedience due thereunto the condition of Schism and the danger and guilt of it The first is that the Church of Christ is a Society or Company under a Regiment discipline Government and the members constituting that Society are either persons taught guided governed or persons teaching guideing governing and this in order to preserve all in unity and to advance every member of this visible Society to an effectual and real participation of Grace and Vnion with Christ the Head and therefore and upon no less account is obedience due unto them Eph. 4.11 12 13 16 and Heb. 13.17 and he that will not hear the Church to be as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 16. c. Thus he And thus clear-sighted men are in the case where they are to require obedience but not so where to yield it This said of the Schism of Presbyters departing from their Bishops the same Dr. Hammond saith ‖ Of Schism c. 3. of the Schism of Bishops departing from their Metropolitans and of Metropolitans from their Primats or Patriarchs Now to go on If then for example the Presbyter is bound upon such a guilt to obey his Bishop then the subjects of both the Presbyter and the Bishop when these two dissent are tied to adhere to the Bishop not to the Presbyter i.e. to obey him whom the other if he continued in his duty ought also to obey and sic de caeteris These subordinations therefore known Christians also cannot but know in the division of Church-Governors distinct in dignity still those to whom their obedience is thus fastned 2. Next §. 25. n. 1. In a Body or Court consisting of many of an equal rank as Councils the supreme Ecclesiastical Judge do in which body in all or most causes or decisions may and usually do happen some dissenters that here it is necessary for rending the decrees of such complex bodies effectual that at least the much major part thereof joyned with the prime Apostolick See conclude the whole the traditionary practice of the most universally allowed Councils from the beginning of Christianity as likewise the same practice in all Civil Courts of the same composition doth sufficiently put this out of dispute if any thing can be so See what is said of this Disc 1. § 31 36 38. Where if it be further demanded for legitimating the Acts of such a Council or also for the sufficient acceptation by the Church Catholick of such act or definition what proportion this major part whether defining in Council or accepting out of it is to bear in respect of the minor or how much to exceed it I know not what better director herein we can have than the former custom of the Catholick Church and the example and pattern of the primitive times Nor what greater justification the proceedings of later Councils can receive herein than the same practice as theirs is appearing in those ancient Councils that are universally allowed If then we stay here a litle to review the proceedings §. 25. n. 2. of the first Councils and think the later times may safely steer according to their course Looking into the first Council of Nice we find in Hilarius ‖ De Syncdis no less then eighty Bishops before this Council was assembled mentioned to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See also what Bishops Arius pretended to have sided with him in his Letter to Euseb Nicomed written some years before the Nicene Council ‖ Apud Epiph Haer. 69. Theodoret. l. 1. c. 5. and in the Council also ⋆ seventeen Bishops some of note at the first to have dissented from the rest and after the Council * Arianism in the Eastern parts to have grown in a small time to a much greater bulk supporting their cause with several unwary expressions of former Ecclesiastical Writers as Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexand. Origen ‖ See Pelavins in Epiph. Her 69. before a stricter discussion of this controversie Yet was this no diminution to the strength of the Nicene decree or to a valid acceptation thereof both being done by a much greater part of the Church Again in the third General Council of Ephesus §. 25. n. 3. we find John the Patriarch of Antioch with his Oriental Bishops above thirty favouring Nestorianism and opposing the decrees of the rest of that Council yet did not the other part of that Council forbear to define Anti-Nestorianism without and against them and also to excommunicate them for their non-conformity to the major part nor did the Christian world cease to account the acts of this Council valid without the acceptation thereof by this Patriarch and his party these acts being justified by the much greater part of the Church Catholick joyned with the Roman Patriarch Neither supposing that this Patriarch and his Bishops and their Successors had continued to this day as too many ever since in those parts do and as they did for some time to oppose this decree could it have rescued Nestorianism from being justly reputed an Heresie though this party was so considerable as that the Emperour retarded the Execution of the Councils censures upon them till that in the year next ensuing the Patriarch and most of the rest were regained to a peaceable submission to the Church Catholick and her doctrine Come we to the fourth General Council of Chalcedon §. 25. n. 4. Two years before it in a question concerning our Lord's consisting of and in two natures distinct not only before but after their union in one person the prevalent party in a Council of above 120 Bishops had defined the contrary tanquam de fide For which also they pretended the doctrine of the Fathers Athanasius Cyril Alexand. and Gregory Nazianz. Concerning which Fathers you may find Eutyches ‖ In Concil Constantinop apud Conc Chalc. act 1. pleading thus for himself Vae mihi si sanctos Patres anathematizavero And Dioscorus thus ‖ Conc. Chalc Actione prima Ego testimonium habeo sanctorum Patrum Athanasii Gregorii Cyrilli in multis locis quia non oportet dicere post adunationem duas naturas sed unam naturam Dei verbi incarnatam Ego cum Patribus ejicior Ego defendo Patrum dogmata non transgredior in aliquo horum testimonia non simpliciter neque transitoriè sed in libris habeo Thus Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon and we find the subscription of 96 Bishops either deluded or forced as they complained afterward ‖ V. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1 4. to Dioscorus his definition in that former Council But the great Council of Chalcedon notwithstanding such an opposition defined the contrary doctrine as of faith and deposed the chief Actors in this former Council amongst which were the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria And to the greater authority of this Council all the rest save
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroyes any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. Stillingfleet †p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingf p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society Suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion Suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposit to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also reformers of the reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both injoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 100. Whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Mr. Stillingfleets rational account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly
THE GUIDE IN CONTROVERSIES Or A Rational Account Of the Doctrine of ROMAN-CATHOLICKS Concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion Reflecting on the later Writings of Protestants particularly of Archbishop Lawd and Mr. Stillingfleet on this Subject By R. H. 1. Pet. 3.15 Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem 2. Cor. 6.8 Per Infamiam bonam Famam ut Seductores Veraces Printed in the Year MDCLXVII The Preface to the Reader AFter the sad effects of discord and quarrels in Religion so long experienced and End of such Controversies cannot but be by all pious Christians most passionately desired And an end of them if it may be by an Infallible or unerring decision of those necessary That a Writing also if clear and free from any ambiguity in its sence may decide these is confessed by all For if words written cannot neither can words spoken since nothing can be said but what may be recorded and granted also that such Writing doth decide them infallibly if it be the Holy Scripture But it appears that the sence of Holy Scripture is not in all Controversies that are thought necessary to be determined so clear but that it is called in question and disputed by considerable Parties For the ending of which therefore that God hath left another living Guide his Church or the Ecclesiastical Governors thereof which is in all Ages in the exposition of Holy Scripture and the decision of these Controversies as to Necessaries Infallible from other Sects easily discerned in its sentence easily Vnderstood is in these Discourses pretended to be proved And learned Protestants also shewed to maintain those Principles from which it seems rationally consequent Any such living Infallible Guide Protestants strongly deny and oppose And hereby if indeed there be such a Guide 1st incurr great peril as to their Salvation By denying a due obedience and Submission of Judgment to its Authority and Definitions And by deserting its Communion as not to be enjoyed on other termes And 2ly become unsettled and of a various judgment in several points of Religion of great concernment and daily subdividing into more Sects Their many objections therefore and difficulties urged against the Being of any such Guid are here considered and replyed to Especially those occurring in the writings of their later Divines Arch Bp. Lawd Bp. Bramhall Dr. Hammond Dr Ferne Mr. Chillingworth Mr. Stillingfleet and others Whose Art and diligence hath been so great in fighting against their own Happiness if I may so say and in hindring Themselves and others with all imaginable arguments from returning into the Unity of the Catholick Church and Faith that there seemes nothing left out or neglected by them that can hereafter be said new in their in their Defence Of which objections whether any of moment and pertinent to the matter in hand are here concealed or of those mentioned any not fully satisfied is left to the equal Reader 's Judgment The Author though conscious of his weaknes yet confident of the Cause and presuming so necessary a Truth to have so much advantage over Error as that it needeth not the very sharpest wit and exactest Judgment to vindicate and maintain it hath taken in hand this task in the long silence of many other more able Workmen that he might give satisfaction to some persons who seem with great indifferency to desire it and that the Adversary in having the last Word might not also to some weaker judgments seem to have the best Cause And to this end He hath also wholly applyed himself herein to the language and expressions of Protestants used in this Controversie and indeavored to follow their Motion to the smalest Particulars and last Retraits and hath built a good part of his discourse on their own Concessions as more prevalent with such Readers and those materials which their own writings afford advantagious to Truth and the present design Recommending this most important affair to the Protestant Readers most serious consideration As which if what is promised here be made good will possess Him of a much more true and solid Satisfaction and Tranquility of minde than his former Principles could possibly afford Him 1 * Whilst now he discernes himself contrary to what he before imagined guarded in his way to heaven with a double Guide unfailable The Holy Scriptures as what points they are clear And next the Holy Church in what they seem obscure into whose judgment and sentence he safely resolves all his former Scruples and anxieties concerning such Texts wherein a mistake is any way dangerous * Whilst now by a new and holier way of mortifying his own judgment instead of confuting another's and especially that of Superiors and of subduing his passions †St. August De Serm. Dom. in Monte 1. l. 3 c. On Beati pauoeres spiritu Oportet animam se mitem praebere pietate ne id quod imperitis videtur absurdum vituperare audeat pervicacibus concertationibus effiâ—iatur indocilis instead of enriching his intellect and seeking the possession of Truth by humility and obedience instead of Science and Argument he becomes fixed and setled in most of those Controversies as already stated by this Guide which still entangle and perplex others The light of his own Reason first serving him so far as to the discovery of that Guide a discovery wherein the divine providence hath left so clear and evident that a sincere and unbiased quest cannot miscarry to whom once found out he is afterward for all other things I mean that are prescribed by this Guide to subject and resigne it * Whilst now he renders himself one of those Babes to whom God by these Spiritual Fathers in all simplicity believed by him reveales what things are hid from the self-wise and prudent who are still standing upon their Guard with Pythagoras his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Jewe's Quomodo Jo. 6.52 in their mouths missing of Truth where Authority and Tradition teach it out of too much wariness to be deceived * Whilst now as Mary at our Lord's so he meekly sits at his Church's feet and heareth her words when as those others whom he hath left full of learned cares from their youth like St. Austine when a Manichee how and where to finde Truth taught to believe no side to search and rifle all are stating all their life long every Controversie a new to themselves one on this manner another on that examining all pretended Foundations whether solidly laid For where say they may not an Humane Testimony deceive them even from the more principal The essential Vnity of the Trinity The Divinity and Eternity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost the Vhiquity of Gods essence and his Absolute Praescience the number and right use of the Sacraments The Commission of the Churches Hierarchy and Bishops their just authority and from whom they hold it for in all these they finde acute Divines calling on their impartiall
small so is learning there by reason of extreme poverty very much decayed ‖ See Roger. Recollect Terr Saincte 2 l. Tract 4 5. Thomas à lesu dé conv Gent. 6 l. p 285. So that he must now adhere to the Western who would adhere either to the major part of Christianity or to the learned And it seems a great tergiversation and distrust in their cause for any person or Church of this Western-flourishing Body to fly and retire to such remote Confederates some of them almost our Antipodes and to decline the judgment that is easily had of the same Western-Body which hath a Conclusive authority in respect of any part thereof for controversies arising within this Patriarchat and which was alwayes by reason of the Presidency of S. Peters chair the most dignified part of Christendom and is the most free at this present time in their exercise of Religion the most unmolested in their Government and Discipline the most flourishing in Learning and Records of Antiquity and lastly which by their numerous Clergy and Populacy and the extent also of several members of their Body into all those parts where these other Churches reside do seem by much the greatest part of Christianity 4. But 4ly how numerous soever these Eastern Christians be or how good their title to give their Suffrages in Councils yet §. 36. n. 7. there seems no great advantage that can arise to the Protestant-party hence all these Churches in their publick Liturgies Doctrines and Rites as to the Protestant-controversies much what agreeing with the Greek Church ‖ See 3d Disc §. 158. c. 177 c. and this again with the Roman 5. Lastly this consent and agreement of the Greek and other Eastern Churches or the greatest part of them with the Roman in the forenamed Controversies appearing in their Liturgies Writings common Practices and these not borrowed from the West between which and them there is known to have been for many Ages no great Friendship seems sufficient to render the Occidental Councils wherein these Points have been decided either General or Equivalent thereto without those Letters or Messages which the Bishop requires as necessary from these Churches which Letters depend on the assembling of some inferior Synods Diocesan or Provincial among them a thing in so great a Desolation not to be expected Yet before the Turks last Conquests in some of these Western Councils that have determined some of these points there hath been a considerable Representative of the Eastern Churches as in the Great Lateran Council under Innocent and in the Florentine So then stands the case with the Bishop and other Protestants that yielding submission to General Councils they cannot rightly on this account withdraw it from several Councils that have been assembled in the West in later Ages 3. But next this Bishop professeth himself to submit also to the Sentence of an Occidental Council §. 36. n. 8. if a free one so that we need not further trouble our selves to enquire after a more General * 3. Of Councils Occidental but search if any such free Occidental Council hath defined all or any of the present Controversies which Council he obligeth the Protestant Churches to acquiesce in and that with good reason For the same Authority hath a Patriarchal Council over the National Churches and Synods of the West as these claim over Provincial or Diocesan the authority of which National Synods see established in the Synod under King James 1603. Can. 139 140. And the same Authority of Patriarchal granted by Dr. Field and others Disc 2. § 24. Now Occidental Councils there have been many several of them before Luther's days one since that have decreed and given their Sentence in several if not all of those Points of Controversie of which yet the Protestants do still from a free Occidental Council seek resolution ‖ See below § 50. n. 2. The enquiry then remains concerning their freedom where also I suppose no greater freedom needs be proved than as to the particular Controversies defined against Protestants For a Council to which some violence is offered in one thing which perhaps is by some potent persons therein contended for yet may be left altogether free as to many other things wherein none have any particular or all an equal interest 1st Then If we enquire into the Western Councils before Luther that of Franckfort Mistakes being removed concerning which see Mr. Thorndikes ‖ Epilog l. 3. p. 363. Concessions the great Lateran Council and those five preceding it that defined a substantial conversion in the Eucharist the Council of Constance ‖ Of Idolatry § 57. and that of Florence I find nothing objected against their freedom nor any antifaction then in the Church as to the Points we speak of against whom there was any need to procure in the Council a stronger part or to over-awe any ones liberty Nor see I any necessity of force to be used upon the Fathers for voting those things lawful which were their daily practice or for voting such a thing a truth in their Meeting as that of a substantial conversion in the Eucharist which before their convening though agitated much and contradicted by some Inferiors yet not one Bishop in the Catholick Church of those times opposed And if the paucity of the number of Western Bishops in some of these Councils should be alledged as a prejudice to them the general acceptation of them by those times makes a sufficient amends for it Next if we take into consideration the freedom of that of Trent since Luthers time §. 36. n. 9. according to the particulars required by the Bishop ‖ Before §. 35 n. 1. there are four things sufficient to remove our jealousie of any violence used for the defining most of those points I will not say all to avoid some cavils controverted by Protestants concerning which only is our inquiry They 1st is That however some of those points may be pretended to have bin voted at first as it were surreptiously by a very small Body of Bishops and many of those of one Nation yet both a full Body of Bishops afterwards in the Conclusion of the Council unanimously agreeing ratified these and the General Body of the absent Prelaces of all the Western Churches except Protestants and those of France amongst the rest accepted them The 2d That Soave no friend to this Council yet testified that as to the Protestant or Lutheran controversies the votes of the Fathers of that Council were very unanimous without any cloak-bag expected from Rome without any dispute or contracts either between themselves or with the Pope though about some other points there was much See Soave p. 230. where speaking of the Councils using ambiguity of expression in some matters wherein was some diversity of opinion among the Fathers so to satisfie all But saith he that which hath been related in this particular perhaps did happen in
same Doctrines and interpretation of Scripture was judged clear on the other side 10. Of which Controversies and matters in debate if any were in points necessary it must be granted that such Councils being universally accepted in such a sence as can only be rationally required ‖ See before §. 38. in these were unerrable and might lawfully require from their Subjects assent thereto Or at least if later Councils faulty in demanding their Subjects assent so must be the four first that are allowed by Protestants 11. To which Councils also and not to their Subjects must belong the judgment of what or how many Points are to be accounted necessary Or else neither did the judgment hereof belong to the four first Councils nor could they justly upon it require assent and join som such points to the Creed 12. But if such Controversies be supposed in non-necessaries yet for the peace of the Church after the determination of such a Council the advers party ought to acquiesce in silence and non-contradicting without either pronouncing that an Error which such Council holds a Truth or the Scripture clear for such a sence as such Council disallows 13. Or If Protestants will not be obliged to this why do they appeal to a free General Council for deciding differences and setling a peace when they will neither yield the obedience of silence to the Definitions of such Councils in points not necessary nor grant that any of the Controversies concerning which they appeal to them are points necessary wherein such Council universally accepted may be submitted to by them as un-errable The summe then is That their Reformation was not from some co-ordinate Church attempting to tyrannize over them as the second branch of their defence and those following to the eighth do import but from their Superiors From these not for somthing held or practised and not enjoined for here all having their liberty was no cause to depart but for points defined and wherein Conformity was required by them to whose judgment therefore they ought to have submitted so far as to learn from it in matters questioned what is Truth and Error Or at least so far as not to contradict it and consequently as not to reform against it In doing the contrary of which they are charged as guilty of Schism and of breaking the Laws of Subordination and Vnity established in the Church ‖ Of which see Disc 2. §. 24. n. 1. 14. Lastly VVhereas against such Obedience an Obligation is pleaded n. 6. to do nothing against Conscience It is replied that a man's conscience miss-perswaded that somthing is an Error is to be followed indeed and he upon no command to profess assent thereto but excuseth not from guilt nor freeth from the Church's Censures those who might have better informed it ‖ See Dr. Hammond of Schism c. 2. §. 8. Thus the Remonstrance After which well weighed I see not what security any one can have in continuing in such a Society as hath thus broken the Links of Ecclesiastical Government and lives in a separation from the main Body if either the rejecting the Definitions of the Church's former Councils be Heresie or relinquishing her Communion Schism CHAP. VIII VI. That according to the former Concession made in the Fifth Chapter § 32. If so enlarged as ancient Church-practice and Reason requires all or most of the Protestant Controversies are by former obliging Councils already decided § 56. n. 1 c. An Instance hereof in the Controversie of the Corporal Presence in the Eucharist or Transubstantiation § 57. NOw to consider the other Concession ‖ See before §. 41. and § 32 c. of more moderate Protestant Divines §. 56. n. 1. * granting our Lord's assistance to the Church Catholick such as that she shall also for ever be an unerring Guide in Necessaries a thing denied by Mr. Chillingworth ‖ See before §. 4. That according to those Conditions of determining controversies that can justly be required most of those between Cathol Protestants have been already decided because of a Consequence thereof which he foresaw Namely That we must take her judgment and guidance also in this point what points are fundamental or necessary and then who seeth not what will follow Namely That we are to believe this Church in all Points wherein she saith she is unerring And upon this * granting also her General Council or Representative she having no other way to teach direct define any thing or at at least no other way so clear and evident to be unerring in Necessaries provided that such Council be universally accepted and not opposed or reversed by the Church Catholick in another following Representative but received by a general tacit at least approbation and conformity to its Decrees Where also it is conceded that a Council for its meeting less General yet if having an universal acceptation is equivalent thereto And hence making their frequent Appeal to these Councils as the supream and ultimate Ecclesiastical Court for setling Unity of Doctrine and Peace in the Church and wherein they promise victory to their Cause and an end of Debates Of which see before § 32. c. A General Council §. 56. n. 2. after it is admitted by the whole Church is then infallible saith the Archbishop ‖ p. 346. he means in Necessaries But Bishop Bramhall further When inferior Questions saith he ‖ Vindic. of the Church of England p. 27 not fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgments are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in peace and patience And they who shall oppose the Authority and shall disturb the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Reply to Chalced. Prefat And I submit saith he ‖ my self to the representative Church that is to a free General Council or so general as can be procured And Schism Guarded p. 136. There is nothing saith he that we long after more then a General Council rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidental Council as general as may be See much more to this purpose said by this Bishop before § 34 c. And thus Dr. Hammond ‖ Of Heres §. 14. n. 6. notwithstanding what is quoted out of him before § 5. We do not believe that any General Council truly such ever did or shall err in any matter of Faith nor shall we further dispute the authority I suppose he means to oblige us then we shall be duly satisfied of the universality of any such Council And Answer to Catholick Gentleman ‖ c. 2. §. 3. A Congregation that is fallible may yet have authority to make Decisions and to require Inferiours so far to acquiesce to their Determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary Opinions And ‖ Ibid. c. 8. §. ◠n. 7. I
Hooker Pref. §. 6. l. 2. §. 7. and in reason what can any say less § 21 10ly From this I also take it for granted That though such or so many Prop. 10. as can demonstratively prove the contrary are hereby disobliged to yield their Assent to the Doctrines of their former Guides yet so many others as cannot do the like remain obliged still to follow and obey the same their former Pastors and by no means may join themselves in communion or adhere to the new Demonstrators till they themselves are confirmed in the like Certainty By which Rule how few will there be of the Reformed that do not still owe their Obedience to the same Church giving her Laws still as formerly that was before Luther who upon new Evidences deserted it where all owe this Obedience save Demonstrators of their new Tenents CHAP. III. 11. That these Church-Governors may teach diversly and some of them err in Necessaries and fall into Heresies § 22. 12. And therefore Christians not left to follow whom of them they please But some certain Rule there is to which of them in any Division they ought to adhere That this in the universal Church-practice is and rationally can be no other than in these Judges subordinate dissenting to adhere to the Superior in those of the same Order and Dignity dissenting to the Major part § 23. c. Where Of the Major part concluding the whole in the ancient Councils § 25. n. 2. And Of the Defection of the Church-Prelacy in the times of Arrianism § 26. n. 2. 14. And that the Protestant-Marks whereby to discern true from false Guides as to the Quest here viz. to learn from these true Guides in matters controverted which is the true Faith are unserviceable § 28. § 22 11ly THat some of these Church-Governors more or fewer may become Hereticks and erroneous in points necessary and may guide Christians contrary to the rest of them Prop. 11. is granted by all sides and known by Experience § 23 12ly It seems therefore also evident That Christians for yielding the Obediences forenamed Propos 9th and allowed by Protestants in such dissenting of Governors Prop. 12. may not safely follow which of them they please or judge to be in their doctrines the rightest for so they judge of their Judges and may as well judge the Controversies but that some Rule there is to whom in such case they are to adhere whom to relinquish it being as necessary for the same divine providence to leave some means by which to know our Guide as to give us one And this Rule also by tradition hath been and in reason can be no other but that in Judges Ecclesiastical subordinate whether Persons or Councils dissenting men ought to adhere to the Superior in Judges equal dissenting to adhere to the Major not minor part For Example In England a Synod Diocesan and one compounded of both the Provinces dissenting here Obedience is due to the Provincial Synod or Convocation and in the Provincial Synod again a minor part dissenting due to the Major Otherwise any may hold what doctrine liketh him best and oppose the maintainers of the contrary since ordinarily some Ecclesiastical Governor either Inferior or Superior if not a greater yet some smaller part or other of them may be found also to hold it And thus the Unity of this Catholick Church as to doctrine is quite overthrown 1st In Persons §. 24. n. 1. or Councils subordinate that the Superior in case of any dissent rightly challengeth our Obedience I think it out of dispute So in England for the establishing of the authority of the supreme National Synod and the Obedience thereto in respect of all Inferiors for preventing dissentions see the Decree in Can. 139. 140. of the Synod under K. James 1603. Where it is said Whosoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation is not the true Church of England by representation Or shall affirm that no manner of person either of the Clergy or Laity not being themselves particularly assembled in the said Sacred Synod are to be subject to the Decrees thereof in causes Ecclesiastical as not having given their voices unto those Decrees let him be excommunicated and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke that his wicked Error And for Obedience to this Highest Ecclesiastical Court see the King 's resolute Speech in the Conference at Hampton-Court ‖ p. 72. I will have one Doctrine and one Discipline one Religion in substance and Ceremony and therefore I charge you never to speak more to that point How far you are bound to obey when the Church hath ordained it What Subjection then for preserving Unity is required in the English Church cannot reasonably be disallowed by them in the Catholick Again see in Dr. Hammond's Book of Schism ‖ c. 3. an acknowledgment of primitive Subordination as of a Presbyter to the Bishop so of Bishops to Metropolitans of Metropolitans to Primates or Patriarchs where he comes short but one Link of those which the Roman Church maintains viz. Of the Patriarchs to the Proto-Patriarch or the Bishop of Rome And again see his acknowledgment ‖ Schism c 8. p 158. Ans to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. of a Subordination of all these severed persons to the whole Corporation or Body of them assembled in Council in which Council he saith It is evident that the power which severally belongs to each Bishop Answ to Cath. Gentl. p. 29. §. 9 10. is there united I add and therefore if that Power which they have severally be by divine right so is this which they have conjunctly notwithstanding what is disputed against it ‖ See Stil Rat account 3 par c. 1. p. 515. c. as a subordination of all the Bishops in a Province to a Council Provincial in a Nation to a Council National of all Christianity to a Council General Only here he omits one subordination well known in the Church and sufficiently attested by other Protestants viz. a subordination of the Bishops of several Nations that are under one Patriarch to a Council Patriarchal Which defect of his give me leave to supply to you out of Dr. Field and Bishop Bramhall Authorities as authentick as his Thus then Dr. Field ‖ Of the Ch. p. 518. These Patriarchs might convocate the Metropolitans of their several divisions and hold a Patriarchal Council which was of greater Authority then either those in the several Provinces or of a whole Nation formerly mentioned because it consisted of more and more honourable Bishops yet had the Patriarchs no greater authority over the Metropolitans within their larger Circuits than the Metropolitans within their lesser Compass And Ib. 513. shewing against Bellarmine that by reason of the several subordinations of the Churches Officers and of their Consults there was no further necessity of a Monarchical Government in the Church for conserving the unity thereof 1 If saith
fauteres compositionem verborum quòd Sacrae litera ejusmodi minimè complecterentur insectari possent After this upon the calling of the Council at Sardica A. D. 347. the Eastern Bishops assembled at Philippopolis and though they condemned Arrianisme yet maintaining Semi-Arrianisme were only 76. whilst the Orthodox Sardican Bishops were about 300. In the next Council following at Sirmium convened for destroying the new Heresie of Photinus both the first and last Form of the Faith that was composed by the Eastern Bishops there for the second themselves disallowed though defective yet contained nothing in them that might not well be taken in a Catholick sence And in such a sence was the first explained by S. Hilarius ‖ lib. de Synodis writing in those very times From which it follows that it is not necessary that all the Subscribers of these Creeds should either be Arrian or Semi-Arrian And there seems to be a great hand of the Divine Providence in it That it is Professed in these Creeds That Filius did ex Patris Substantiâ constare or that he was Patri per omnia similis etiam quoad substantiam or Essentiam Again that he was ante omne tempus aut secúlum all which is most true But not professed there what these Semi-Arrians held further That the Son though he had altogether the like yet had not the self-same essence with the Father which they thought could not consist with the distinction of the Persons And that the Son though ante omne tempus yet was not co-eternal with the Father for this they thought consisted not with his Generation this I say in those Creeds is not mentioned they it seems either thinking it enough as to the abatement of the former Nicene Decree if they could free themselves and others from being forced to profess any more in the publick Faith than consisted with their private Opinion or else knowing the party that reverenced and contended for the Nicene Faith so considerable as that if their own Tenents were inserted they would not have been at such times by a Major part subscribed Thus things stood in the East till the Council of Seleucia there and of Ariminum in the West 2. Next §. 26. n. 4 As for the West till that Council of Ariminum though some chief Bishops and among the rest Liberius Bishop of Rome suffered Persecution for some three or four years before it for not subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius unheard against whom the Emperor was much incensed as supposing him the chief cause of the enmity between his Brethren Constance and Constantine and himself ‖ See Theodocet l. 2. c. 16. yet the main Body thereof both remained Catholick and possessed of their Chairs till the Meeting of this Council And Liberius being by the importunity of the Roman People recalled from his Banishment where he is said * to have subscribed to one of the Sirmian Forms of Faith but as I said before expressing nothing in it but what was Catholick * interdixisse Ecclesiâ illis qui Filium Patri non substantiâ caeteris rebus omnibus similem asseverarent i. e. the Arrians ‖ Sozom. l. 1. c. 14. was now as constant an Oppugner of Arrianisme as any other denying also his Consent to the Decree of this Council ‖ See Theodl 2. c. 22. Now also the Roman Clergy were very famous for their Constancy in the Nicene Faith and their refusing the Admission of Felix supposed an Arrian into Liberius his Chair And of the Orthodoxness at this time of the other Wâ—stern Prelates see what Hilarius saith in the beginning of his Book De Synodis directed in his Exile to these Bishops and lastly S. Jerom's new wonder Ingemuit totus Orbis Arrianum se esse miratus est spoken upon a strange and unexpected issue of this Council at Ariminum shews there was no such thing before it To come to the Council then §. 26. n. 9. 1st As this Meeting of about 400 Bishops assembled there appeared not above 80. or as Athanasius ‖ Athan. de Sydno saith 50. addicted to Arrianisme though some of these indeed the Emperor's Favorities accordingly the Decree of this Council confirming that of Nice and condemning Arrianisme was sent by them though never delivered â—o the Emperor and a dismission desired which long delayed several of them without leave departed the rest hindered from dissolving upon much sollicitation of the Emperor's Agents and the specious pretence of a firm Peace and Union so to be attained of the Western and Eastern Churches yielded at last to subscribe a Form in which was not rejected but omitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon these terms Quod vulgo parùm intellectum offendicula pareret quia in Scripturâ nusquam memoraretur And Neque adeo necessarium esset de Personâ Patris Filii Spiritus sancti unam Substantiam nominari ‖ Theodoret. l. 2. c. 21. where you may observe the truth of it is no way denied This I say was omitted but nothing affirmed in the Form which was not well capable of a Catholick sence If there was let it be named For this Expression Credo in Filium Dei similem Genitori suo Patri secundum Scripturas I suppose none will say contains any Error or untruth in it nor opposeth Identity any more than S Paul's Imago invisibilis Dei Col. 1.15 Or Christus aequalis Deo Phil. 2.6 Which Texts were also then urged in defence of it Especially when 1st the Arrian Forms usually joined per omnia in explication of it as may be seen in the third Sirmâ—an Form of Faith with which this wâ—s much what the same And so the Emperor Constantius exacted this Subscription of similis per omnia from Valence himself the chief Leader of the Arrian party ‖ See Epiph. Her 73. leftblank And 2. Next the Semi-Arrians in the per omnia included also Similis Deo Patri secundum Essentiam or Substantiam from which the Catholicks rightly inferred Identity of Essence And also went so far as to admit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and to profess vocem illam in Concilio Niceno ad perversam Arrii doctrinam expugnandam sanctè pièque positam And Se eandem Fidem ante-hac servasse servare ad extremum servaturos ‖ Socrat. l. 4. c. 11. Only they understood this word of the Nicene Fathers in a diminutive sence ‖ Socrat. l. 3. c. 21. leftblank And thus speaks S. Basil ‖ Ad maximum Philosophum Ep. 1. of their Expression Similis ecundum Substantiam Si quid ipse sentiam dicendum est quantum ad similem secundum Essentiam siquidem huic dicto adjunctum fuerit prorsus citra ullam ipsius essentiae variationem eam ego amplector probroque vocem ut quae idem significet quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But yet because this Form though in some sence true was general
own understanding and industry to find out his own way to Heaven because he can securely trust no living guide on Earth besides through all the thorny controversies of the present age grown as Dr. Field saith in number so many and in matter so intricate which require vast pains throughly to examine and an excellent judgment aright to determine and which much eloquence and long smoothing of them the interposing of humane reason in divine matters and the varying records of former ages have rendred on all sides so far plausible and resembling truth that a little interest serves the turne to blind a man in his choice and make him embrace an errour for truth let him I say humbly resigne his wearied and distracted judgment wholly to her direction § 80 For as Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Relation of the Western Religions ‖ p 29. speaks methinks very pertinently though in the person of a Romanist pleading his own cause Seeing Christianity is a Doctrine of Faith a Doctrine whereof all men even children are capable as being gross and to be believed in general by all Seeing the high vertue of Faith is in the humility of the understanding and the merit thereof in the readiness of Obedience to embrace it and seeing the outward proofs thereof are no other than probable and of all probable proofs the Church-testimony is most probable So he which I propose rather thus Seeing of outward proofs of our Faith where the true sense of Scripture is the thing disputed the Church's testimony whether for declaring to us the sense of Scripture or judgment of the Ancients is a proof of most weight What madness were it for any man to tire out his soul and to wast away his spirits in tracing out all the thorny paths of the controversies of these days wherein to err is no less easy than dangerous what through forgery of authors abusing him what through sophistry transporting him and not rather to betake himself to the right path of truth whereunto God and nature reason and experience do all give witness and that is to associate himself to that Church whereunto the custody of this heavenly and supernatural truth hath been from heaven it self committed to weigh discreetly which is the true Church and that being once found to receive faithfully and obediently without doubt or discussion whatsoever it delivereth § 81 And then further If in this disquisition of his to make use here of that plea which the same Author in the following words hath very fairly drawn up ‖ Relation of Western Religious p. 30. for the Church of Rome and her adherents without giving us any counter-defence or shewing any more powerful attractives of the Churches reformed what ever he intended If besides the Roman and those Churches unitted with it he finds all other Churches to have had their end or decay long since I mean the Sects and Religions that have been formerly in the Western World Hussites Lollards Waldenses Albigenses Berengarians which some Protestants make much pretence to or their beginning but of late if This being founded by the Prince of the Apostles with promise to him by Christ that Hell gates should not prevaile against it but that himself will be assistant to it till the Consummation of the World hath continued on now till the end of a 1600. years with an honourable and certain line of near 240. Popes Successors of St. Peter both tyrants and traytors pagans and hereticks in vain wresting raging and undermining If all the lawful General Councils that ever were in the world have from time to time approved and honoured it if God hath so miraculously blessed it from above as that so many sage Doctors should enrich it with their writings such armies of Saints with their holiness of Martyrs with their Blood of Virgins with their purity should sanstifie and embellish it If even at this day in such difficulties of unjust rebellions and unnatural revolts of her nearest children yet she stretcheth out her arms to the utmost corners of the world newly embracing whole Nations into her bosome If Lastly in all other opposite Churches there be found inward dissentions and contrariety change of opinions uncertainty of resolutions with robbing of Churches rebelling against governours things much more experienced since this authors death in the late Presbiterian wars confusion of order invading of Episcopacy yea and Presbytery too whereas contrariwise in this Church the unity undivided the resolutions unalterable the most heavenly order reaching from the height of all power to the lowest of all subjection all with admirable harmony and undefective correspondence bending the same way to the effecting of the same work do promise no other than continual increase and victory let no man doubt to submit himself to this glorious spouse of God c. This then being accorded to be the true Church of God it follows that she be reverently obeyed in all things without further inquisition she having the warrant that he that heareth her heareth Christ and whosoever heareth her not hath no better place with God than a publican or a pagan And what folly were it to receive the Scriptures upon credit of her authority the authority of the Church that was before Luthers time and not to receive the interpretation of them upon her authority also and credit And if God should not alway protect his Church from errour i. e. dangerous to or distructive of Salvation and yet peremptorily commanded men always to obey her then had he made but very slender provision for the salvation of Mankind which conceit concerning God whose care of us even in all things touching this transitory life is so plain and eminent were ungrateful and impious And hard were the case and mean had his regard been of the vulgar people whose wants and difficulties in this life will not permit whose capacity will not suffice to sound the deep and hidden mysteries of Divinity and to search out the truth of intricate controversies if there were not others whose authority they might safely rely on Blessed are they who believe and have not seen Though they do not see reason always for that they believe save only that reason of their Belief drawn from authority the merit of whose Religious humility and obedience doth exceed perhaps in honour and acceptation before God the subtil and profound knowledge of many others Thus that Author pleads the cause of the Roman and its adherent Churches without a Reply To which perhaps it will not be amiss to joyn the like Plea §. 82. n. 1. for this Church drawn up by another eminent person ‖ Dr. Taylor liberty of prophecying §. 20. p. 249. in a treatise writ concerning the unreasonableness of prescribing to other mens Faith wherein he indeavoured to represent several Sects of Christianity in their fairest colours in order to a charitable toleration These considerations then he there proposeth concerning the Roman Church Which saith he may very
Church or in such representation to be infallible But 2ly Neither can it be made evident that the universal Church de facto hath either by a formal act or by a tacit consent devolved either its infallibility or its whole power and authority on or given any commission to any General Council to appear in behalf of the universal Church which Commission must precede the being of such a Council and also is necessary not only to the first but toties quoties to every General Council but that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it was or could be 3ly Neither suppose it had such a delegation yet can this representative upon this lay title to our Lords or to any divine institution of which there cannot be produced one tittle from Scripture of Christs conveying over the Churches power to it or any particular order from the Apostles concerning it but only to the Church's i. e. humane institution And if we enquire thus instituted what authority it hath The utmost saith Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 510. that can be supposed is this That the parts of the Church i. e. such parts whom by their delegation and chusing of them the persons in the Council represent may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he And thus I think the authority of General Councils is sufficiently pared 1 Their authority only delegative from that Body which yet they pretend to bind by their acts 2. None of them a representative of the whole which neither hath nor can make any such representative 3. Commissioned by some parts of the Church only 4. The promises of divine assistance as to infallibility not made to them if any made but only to the whole diffusive Body of the Church Catholick from whose laws let us but take away Councils Protestants are secure enough 5. Nor possible by the Church diffusive to be made over or assigned to them 6. These not of our Lords nor Apostolical but only humane institution 7. Obligatory only to those parts of the Church who voluntarily consent to accept of their Decrees One would suspect that General Councils have been no great friends to Protestantism when they put in so many bars to keep out their Decrees from annoying the Reformation Men seldom vilifie an Authority that favours them § 92 To this I answer 1st That the Church Governours whenever assembled in Council do act by the self same authority received from our Lord and from their Divine Institution by which they act singly in their several charges and that all the rest of the Church Catholick are their subjects obliged in all duty to them as much when con-as dis-joyned For as Dr. Hammond answers the Catholick Gentleman ‖ p. 27 28. in clearing of himself that his mentioning of Schism against Bishops Metropolitans and Primats involved also Schism against the Councils compounded of all these It is evident that this Power which severally belongs to these Bishops is united in that of the Councils compounded of them and so the despising of that the power of such Councils is an offense under the first sort of Schism and a breach of the subordination to all the rancks of our Ecclesiastical Superiours What authority then and whence they had it singly they have united Neither is this their authority either in their several Provinces or in their Synods delegative save from Christ and his Apostles § 63 2. Next That they are not pretended to have their infallibility in necessaries by any assignment from the Church diffusive but that they have it immediately from the divine promises made principally and primarily to them to whom is committed the feeding of our Lords sheep for ever and the guiding them in the right way of which see Disc 1. § 7.14 and that the Church diffusive is therefore unerring for ever in necessaries because these Guides are so and the reason why the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church the building is because in the chief place they shall not prevail against these Pastors and Teachers the Rocks and Foundations whereon it is built And if such promise made primarily to them then surely made to them in this their most comprehensive capacity when all joyned together If at any time the Church in the Acts ‖ cap. 15 28. might use the stile Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis then in their general assembly and when they were collecti in unum ‖ ver 25. every smaller meeting of them or also every single person seeming muchless capable thereof and if this inerrability necessary to them in any manner at all most necessary in these highest Courts to which ultimately all others do appeal and whose Laws all are bound to obey See before § 8. § 94 3ly As to the convening and composure of this conjunct Judicature of the Clergy I answer 1st That these Church Governours are by our Lord's and Apostolical constitution placed in a due subordination one to another †See Disc 2. §. 23 24. and several Superiours indued with power to assemble them in greater or lesser Bodies as the business requires and times permit these Superiors being sometimes assisted herein by the secular powers as in the times after Constantine yet sometimes also without them as in the ages preceding Constantine the Diocesan Synod being convened by the Bishop Provincial or National by the Metropolitan or Primat and General by the Prime Patriarch and Bishop of the chief Apostolick See For why not an Ecclesiastical person have the right of calling a General Council as well as the Metropolitan of a Provincial Synod the Primat of a National and as Dr. Field ascends higher the Patriarch of a Patriarchal ' For it is evident saith he †p. 668. p. 518. that there is a power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to call Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods yet the last of which consisteth of the Bishops living under the temporal Government of several Princes and that neither so depending of and subject to the power of Princes but that when they are enemies to the faith I add by the same reason or enemies to the Orthodox faith they may exercise the same without their consent or privity and may subject them that refuse to obey their summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence Thus he 2. Next That these conjunct Proceedings and Judicature of the Church-Guides in greater causes do appear also to be sufficienly allowed and authorized by our Lord and his Apostles both * from those Texts which mention and refer to a conjunct authority as from Mat. 18.17 tell the Church which signifies a presence of more than one of those who were to
as I conceive satisfactory For 1st Had I an obligatior of submission of judgement to lawful General Councils you cannot prove this such a one and those the decrees thereof which are now extant with such a certainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my faith For to prove this you must satisfie me in all those things questioned concerning General Councils * by Mr. Chillingworth p. 94. * By Dr. Pierce in his answer to Mr. Cressy p. 18. c. * By Mr. Whitby from p. 428. to p. 433. where he concludes 1st That we never had a General Council 2ly That a General Council is a thing impossible * By Mr. Stillingfleet p. 508. c. 495. 119-123 c. Who also against the being of such a General Council as is the representative of the whole Church Catholick thus disputes †p. 515. 516. The representation of a Church saith he by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come for if such representative of the whole Church there be it must either be so by some formal act of the Church or by a tacite consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church for then there must be some such act of the universal Church preceding the being of any General Council by which they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was But if it be said that such a formal act is not necessary but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a Representative And all those must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have of which no footsteps appear The utmost then saith he that can be supposed in this case is that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he But I suppose its decrees obligatory then only to those parts of the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them which the Arrians did not to receive the Decrees of Nice 2ly Though it be shewed a lawful General Council representing the whole Church as it ought if such yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it since it may err even in Fundamentals if it be not universally accepted as indeed this Council was not for several Bishops there were that were dissenters in the Council and many more afterward †See before § 13. 3ly Were it universally accepted yet unless you can shew me by some means that this point wherein I differ from its judgment is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation both it and the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein 4ly The judgement of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account That whereas the Guides of the Church many years before this Council were divided in their opinion Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria and Hosius a Favourite of the Emperors heading one party and Arrius and the Bishops adhering to him whom I mentioned formerly †§. 13. heading another and whereas afterward in the prosecution of this difference both the foresaid Alexander in one Provincial Council held in Egypt and Hosius sent thither by the Emperor in another had there condemned Arrius and his Confederates yet so it was ordered that in this General Council assembled for an equal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed Enemies to the other party the one Hosius was appointed to sit as President of this Council and the other Alexander held in it the next place to him and poor Arrius excluded and the Bishops who favoured him in the Council though at first freely declaring their dissent yet at last over-awed to a subscription as also was Arrius himself chiefly by the Emperor Constantine's overbearing authority who before somewhat indifferent in the contest yet upon Arrius his undutiful and too peremptory letters had some years before taken great offence at him and also as he was very eloquent publickly written against him †See Baronius A. D. 318 319. Which over-awing hence appears in that the same Bishops that were adherents to Arrius when this Emperor being deceased Constantius his son countenanced their cause returned I say not to their former opinion only but to their publick profession of it By which we may guess that if the Controversie had at that time been committed to equal and disingaged Judges and such as had not formerly shewed themselves a party or if the Oriental Bishops without any fear of the Prince upon them might have given free votes and the Arrian cause then had a Constantius instead of a Constantine things wherein Protestants well understand me because on the same grounds they have rejected the Council of Trent we may presume then the issue would have been under Constantine the same that it was under his Successor I say before Judges equal and indifferent and not such as were before a party though this party should be compounded of the chief superior Prelates of the Church For as Mr. Stillingfleet urgeth †p. 478. We must either absolutely and roundly assert that it is impossible that the superiors in the Church may be guilty of any error or corruption or that if they be they must never be called to an account for it or else that it may be just in some cases to except against them as parties And if in some cases then the question comes to this whether the present he speaks of Idolatry I of Consubstantiality be some of these cases or no And here if we make those superiors Judges again what you grant before comes to nothing Prot. I perceive Mr. Chillingworth's observation is right †p. 60. That in controversies in Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party I add also that in matters of Religion where every man is concerned and in great Controversies especially where is any division of Communion all both Laity and Clergy speedily own and range themselves on one side or other Clergy interessing themselves for the necessary direction of their Subjects Laity in obedience to their Superiors neither can such a Judge be nominated that is not to one side suspected So that in controversies of Religion we must deny any Judge as he did †Ib. §. 17. or this plea that the ordinary Judge that is assigned us 〈◊〉 is a party must not be easily hearkened to § 19 Soc. But I have not yet said all For 5ly Were there none of the forenamed defects in it †Whitby p. 15 Stillingf
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed Truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the Reasons and grounds produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his conscience of the truth of the Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no
separation at all This concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to culpable or causeless separation § 57 Again some of them there are who straiten Schism yet farther ‖ See Stillingf p. 331.357.359 251 290. compar p. 54.56 Whitby p. 424. and making it a separation only from other Christians or Churches in such things wherein it is absolutely necessary to be united with them which is thus far true then state this necâ—ssary union to consist only in the belief of those Fundamental Articles of Faith or Doctrine which are absolutely necessary to Salvation or essential to the being of a Church § 58 Where they hold it not Schism to separate from all particular Churches of the present age for a Doctrine universally held and imposed as a condition of their Communion because they say an error may be so imposed But only Schism to separate from the Primitive and Vniversal Church for Doctrine 1 st That can be made appear to have been Catholick and universally received in the manner expressed before § 52. by the Church of all ages successively from the Apostles to the time of such separation And 2 ly That can also be proved a Doctrine necessary to Salvation and essential to the being of a Church * For the first of these Mr. Stillingfleets words ‖ P. 371. to this purpose in answer to the unlawfulness of reforming former Catholick Doctrines are It is not enough saith he to prove any Doctrine to be Catholick that it was generally received by Christian Churches in any one age but it must be made appear to have been so received from the Apostles time not to say that A. D. 1517. such and such Doctrines were looked on as Catholick and therefore they were so But that for 1517. years successively from the Apostles to that time they were judged to be so and then saith he we shall more easily believe you And p. 357. he saith That we are not to measure the Communion of the Catholick Church by the judgement of all or most of the particular Churches of such an age And * for the 2 d. In the 2 d. Part c. 2. proving Protestants not guilty of Schism p. 331. he saith Whoso separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches any or all as to such things which concern not their being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches not the Catholick And therefore saith he supposing that all particular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all for such errors but what if for some truth though this not Fundamental I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches And p. 358. No Church can be charged with a separation from the true Catholick Church but what may be proved to separate it self in something necessary to the being of the Catholick Church and so long as it doth not separate as to these essentials it cannot cease to be a true Member of the Catholick Church This is freely granted But what are these Essentials to the being of the Church-Catholick p. 357. he saith That the Communion of the Church-Catholick lies open to all such who own the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith And p. 251. he saith All that is meant by saying that the present Church he means Catholick is infallible in Fundamentals is that there shall always be a Church for that which makes them a Church is the belief of Fundamentals and if they believe not them they cease to be so That therefore which being supposed a Church is and being destroyed it ceaseth to be is the formal constitution of it but thus it is as to the Church the belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church Well But what are these necessaries or Fundamentals of the Christian Faith that we may know how long a person or Church retaineth the Communion of the Catholick See then concerning this p. 53. 54 55. These are such points saith he as are required by God as necessary to be explicitly believed by all in order to attain salvation And which are they p. 56. Nothing ought to be required as a necessary Article of Faith but what hath been believed and received for such by the Catholick Church of all ages And afterward What hath been admitted into the ancient Creeds Here then I take his Tenent to be That no more is necessary to render any person or Church free from Schism and a true Member of the Catholick Church and continuing in its Communion than the true belief of all Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary to be believed for attaining Salvation § 59 But here also 1 st These leave us uncertain how particularly to know and distinguish these Fundamentals and Essentials wherein only is Schism from other points that are not so or they do infold them all within the compass of the Creeds where also they contend that they must not be extended to all the Articles thereof whence it will follow that one departing from the Churches Communion for requiring his assent as a condition thereof in respect of some of these Articles yet will be no Schismatick as they state Schism Nor none a Schismatick that is not even in a Fundamental an Heretick Again since several Doctrines there are that are delivered by all former ages which yet are not Fundamental or Essential to Salvation or to the being of a Church thus the separating from all particular Churches or from our spiritual Superiours for any doctrine taken for such will not be Schism So one that separates from the Communion of his Superiors for their requiring his assent and conformity to the Episcopal Government of the Church though he is a Schismatick in Dr. Hammonds account ‖ Schism p. 163. yet must be none in Mr. Stillingfleets unless he will make Espiscopacy essential to the being of a Church concerning which I refer you to his Irenicum and so pronounce the Presbyterian and Transmarine reformed Congregations no Churches of Christ The same may be said of any separating from the external Communion of his Superiors requiring of him consent and conformity to the Definitions of the first four allowed General Councils and the constitutions of the universal Church of the first and purest Ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises which separation is by Dr. Hammond ‖ Schim p. 156. 160. declared Schism but cannot be so upon Mr. Stillingfleets theses unless all these will be maintained by him Fundamentals and Essentials to the being of the Catholick Church I mean as to faith necessary for her attaining Salvation Lastly Mr. Stillingfleet saith ‖ P. 356. a Church enjoyning some dangerons errors as